Guido's apology
A final postscript to my exchanges with Guido. He has now for and retracted his claim on Newsnight's post film discussion (which you can watch here) last night that I was the source for his "story" on Downing Street having a second Lotus Notes software system.
For the record, if I have stories I broadcast them and don't give them to bloggers. If I ever had thoughts of doing anything else they were removed by Guido's performance last night which demonstrated an utterly cavalier attitude to facts.
I'm 
Comments
I thought the film in itself wasn't too unbalanced bar his snappy comments. His live interview was terrible and felt he was on the back foot most of the time. Very disappointed to hear him use your name to give credibilty to his sources. Both you and Adam Bolton were honest and candid about "how it works".
"""...if I have stories I broadcast them..."". Really? Always? Have you never soft-pedalled or ignored stories for fear of offending against the ´óÏó´«Ã½ corporate line?
Nick, I vehemently disagree with the content and manner of many of your news reports, however, I'd choose your rigour and integrity over the irresponsible smearing that characterises many of the political blogs, including Guido's.
Quote:
""...if I have stories I broadcast them...". Really? Always? Have you never soft-pedalled or ignored stories for fear of offending against the ´óÏó´«Ã½ corporate line?"
-----
John, even if that were the case surely Nick wouldn't then give it to someone else to broadcast for him knowing his name was going to be linked to it later.
Also all of us at one point or another have, in our careers, bit our tongue and not said something we would regret later. Broadcasters have to think before telling us what's going on to keep their jobs/sources intact, just as we have to not tell our bosses exactly where to shove it to keep our jobs intact.
I think you are being a little harsh on Guido, his film itself was fair in many ways as both points of view were put and the viewer could make up their own mind.
The live interview was a bit of a hatchet job, and I was not impressed with Michael White who showed a completley cavalier attitude to facts when he denied knowing how old John Prescott was. (See here:
In that atmosphere it appears Guido felt cornered and came out fighting, perhaps in the wrong way. I can appreciate that you would not want to give him any information though!
with this degree of self regarding I think it's time you finally joined the government.
Not only does this post have the self-regard of a politician, it has the spin also.
Guido has said you misunderstood his comments naming you as his source. He has made an apology for the confusion, not a retraction. Stop claiming a victory, it was a petty misunderstanding.
He also didn't say that you should show more allegiance to your viewers than politicians, that was a reply from one of his readers. It's like saying the readers comments to your posts (such as this) represent what you feel, and I'm sure you'll be very quick indeed to deny that.
How about a clear denial, Nick?
We all know that was a frustrating time for you with the injunction.
Rather a grudging apology in my judgement, but better than none. He made a clown of himself on Newsnight but ably demonstrated the virtues of regulation and editorial control vs unconstrained gossipy blogs!
Paxman describing him as living in a ‘pathetic conspiracy world’ really hit the spot. He may claim his blog as the most popular political blog (it certainly gets many more hits than mine ever did!) but he's largely preaching to fellow small-town conspiracy theorists to judge by the comments he allows onto his site.
This Newsnight piece and the previous profile of him on Radio 4 suggest that Mr Staines (aka Guido) is little more than a toff turned jester but at least Newsnight taught me how to pronounce his pseudonym!
PS It's 'interesting' how blog posts about blogging often attract far more comments than any other posts do. What a self-obsessed little medium we inhabit...
I think the live interview on Newsnight didn't prove that Guido is cavalier with facts, more that he has less experience in appearing live on television that Jeremy Paxman and Michael White. He made some bad choices when put under heavy pressure.
Nick writes that if he has a story he broadcasts it, rather than giving it to a blogger, but that doesn't always happen. Charles Kennedy's battle with alcoholism was an open secret in Westminster for years, but the lobby decided to keep schtum. It wouldn't happen now, thanks to bloggers.
I have a lot of time for both you and Guido. But I'm not impressed with the way Guido was treated last night in the post film debate.
This man is not a professional television broadcaster and clearly lacked live debating skills. He allowed himself to be distracted by personal attacks from White (who was clearly threatened by Guido or perhaps blogging in general) and Paxman (only initially mind you then, having firmly knocked the blogger off his stride, he attempted to make a debate out of the session). I'm not a regular reader of his blog but I gather he was asked to make a film, which he agreed to because he was given editorial control, then he was asked to take part in a debate on it, something he was less sure about. Of course, given his argument regarding empty-chair statements he couldn't very well leave the debate with an empty chair so, he agreed. A mistake, I think, as he was abused and insulted, mainly by White, who made little attempt to argue the point Guido was making.
Guido's point re. mainstream media journalists being dependant on maintaining relationships with politicians was a good one and you confirmed it in your contribution. However, I see a place for both independent bloggers and what I suppose we can now call "embedded journalists" like yourself. Some of you are clearly more embedded than others (Michael White as an extreme example of completely partial journalism).
It's a shame you and Guido have come to blows. I've been impressed with your incisive reports (even if you have had to pull some punches you always get the point across). Guido made a mistake last night naming you in error. But I can't help thinking we need more of the likes of Guido and your-good-self and fewer White's and Paxman's. If mainstream journos and bloggers worked together more often I'm sure you'd have the establishment quaking in it's boots.
By the way Paxman and White in one studio made for such a concentration of pomposity and arrogance it was very hard to watch - Newsnight editor, please take note!
I have enormous respect for you, and for Andrew Marr before you, as you try and navigate these delicate waters. As long as you keep trying to balance these forces that exert their influence, that respect will continue.
Bon chance.
Nick, I appreciate that this hasn't been the best of online interactions. But Guido is not considered representative of the blogging community, and many other political bloggers in the UK have distanced themselves from him given his recent behaviour. See such sites as Bloggerheads for more information -
Compared to the mainstream media, the blogosphere has no editorial supervision, and this can be to both its advantage and its disadvantage. On the one hand, you the reader have to do more work to separate out the wheat from the chaff and work out who to trust, although there does exist a notional code of conduct for most of the big UK players; but on the other hand, the blogosphere often reports on issues that the mainstream media simply don't (or won't, or can't) touch.
I can only urge you to continue to engage with other bloggers and the general online discourse, but: do so on the level of the community rather than charismatic or noticeable individuals. A sense of balance in the act of blog-reading comes from listening to all the voices before making your mind up, even if you eventually agree with the first, biggest, noisiest blog you read.
Over the last 10 years there has been so much spin, that the truth has become a victim, to the extent that people start looking behind what the line is, to find out the real truth.
Its appalling that there is such mistrust, but you can only take so much spinning, then you start to feel sick, figuratively and literally speaking.
That is why Bloggers have come to the fore IMHO.
I went to Guido's blog today.
.
There was a strange sound. Not unlike the sound of wheels coming off a wagon.
I haven’t bothered casting more than a stray eye over Guido’s blog, nor have I watched any footage relating to this affair. I doubt I ever will. I’ve seen enough of material like that in the past. However, from what I’ve read, this experience has been a learning opportunity for Guido and Nick Robinson. I’m sure both will benefit from this experience.
It was the most outrageous lie I've ever seen on television when he claimed you were the source for that.
What is more, he didn't reveal a second Lotus Notes system - he said there was a second email system - which there wasn't.
Just to clarify a couple of points. At post 13, Small beds talks of the "blogging community" and a code of conduct.
The blogs that are in this community are generaly Labour supporting blogs, and are not representative of political blogs at all.
Re 17, James Smith "What is more, he didn't reveal a second Lotus Notes system - he said there was a second email system - which there wasn't."
Well, all I can say is that those inside Number 10 have access to email systems which they use other than the one located inside Number 10.
Given the number of highly regarded political blogs out there, conservativehome.com and 18 doughty street to name two, it becomes even more obvious that the focus of the debate was personal and never sought to engage with poltical blogging at all.
Guido is known to be the most inflamatory (and therefor entertaining) - he claims to publish roumor and speculation, not hard news.
White, and indeed Paxman, were pilloring Paul in their medium in the way he has to them for some time.
As amaturish as Guido looked, White looks petty and threatened.
Just to clarify.
I do not believe and never have believed that there was a 2nd email system in Number 10.
I have no evidence that they used Lotus notes and, frankly, couldn't care less what software they use.
I was not and never will be a source for any story Guido publishes.
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ did, however, reveal two of the biggest stories about cash for honours - the existence of the "K and a big P" note and of Ruth Turner's memo or document about Lord Levy.
Our stories were true. Guido's were not. Draw your own conclusions.
Nick
The basic point made by Guido was right, as acknowledged by you - albeit qualified by your making the valid point that journalists like have to live in the real world.
The really striking thing was not the performance of Guido(a virgin to live TV) but that of Michael White. With friends like that putting your case, who needs enemies?
He came across as a bitchy and slightly sinister apologist for New Labour and, as a defence witness, he made a more powerful case for the prosecution than ever they could have done for themselves.
Better for your reoputation that you should distance yourself from White and tolerate Guido for what he is.
Rather than needing a second email system wouldn’t people in any workplace sometimes use their personal email account if they didn’t want it on the 'official one'?
The question to ask might be if the firewall in their office allowed this particular account to operate, rather than perhaps other types of account, and if so has this always been the case, or had the firewall being modified and if so on who's orders and when
No one doubts that you were not the source for Guido's story re. a second email system. He has said he didn't mean to say you were (immediately after the interview on his blog). Please get over it! You're sounding a bit too defensive now!
And by the way, you should care what software they are using. Lotus Notes IS an email system as well as a database system. However, I take your point that there's not enough evidence in the public domain to report its use as fact and THAT is why we rely on you for incontrovertible fact based reporting and bloggers for riskier rumour based reporting. We, as (reasonably) intelligent members of the public can make up our own minds.
My point is you don't need to feel threatened by bloggers, they provide a completely different service from you. Guido made a point about some mainstream journalist being too close to politicians and it's a fair point but I would tell him the same thing. I know you have to maintain relationships with politicians and I take that into account when I listen or watch your reports. There's no need for all this, frankly rather childish, I was right and he was wrong rubbish either. It seems to me that you both need to grow up over this little spat.
Nick -
Is there, or is there not, a 'secure' email system (possibly based on Notes) that the Labour Party use that is accessible via the web? Who is to say that that system has never been accessed from No10? We both know that such a system exists - and Guido published the link to the system on his site. How do you know that no-one has never accessed it from within the walls of No10? Do you have server logs? Do you know how No10 is cabled up?
PMOS's denial of such a system are a very carefully worded non-denial denial.
Re 20, Nick, I presume the change of colour indicates that really is you. My clarification does not undermine your position at all,nor does it contradict what you reiterated in your clarification.
Just to be clear, there need not be a second email system in No 10, for people inside No 10 to be able to access another email system or indeed many other email systems over the internet.
That said yes I appreciate that you did not give Guido the information, nor would I make such a suggestion. I thought it was very wrong of Guido to say such a thing, and clearly this has made life difficult for you. I'll give him a kick next time I see him.
I don't see the need for you to be defensive.
It is true that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has revealed two of the bigger parts of the scandal (Lord Goldsmiths ham fisted attempt at holding it up notwithstanding) but I just managed to get the info out on my blog about the injunction an hour and a quarter before your 10 PM broadcast. Got quite a few hits from that!
I do not think that the closing statements of your reply are necessarily factually correct.
Your stories are true, Guido's cannot be proven so with publicly available information. As with his comment on Newsnight that "we have Levy's trial coming up"... it cannot (yet) be proven untrue and to say so as fact is a mild miss-representation.
Even though everyone is waiting on the completion of the Yates investigation there are people who believe either side of the story, and both sides are entitled to blog about them. Comment, as someone once said, is free, and there is a distinct line between unproven and untrue.
In response to Small Beds, I would say that any distances members of the Blogging community might have put between them and Guido are minute compared to those established between them and the author of the linked post, "Manic". They largely reject him as a representative of the(ir) blogging community because he does not share their political beliefs (as and where they have any).
Three words or four if you are going to be pedantic. "Lord Levy's trial". Say what?
The scales have just fallen from my eyes.
Even Guido Fawkes speaks my second language as articulated by Paxo who appropriately gave the Guy a good stuffing. Just for the "Deep Throat" impersonation rubbish. Enough with the Andy McNab impressions.
The last few comments refer to the possibility of the Labour party/No 10 having varying communications sytems.
The cash for honours saga is likely to continue for some time and the importance of said systems, to the majority of us, is still an unknown and could be central to some charges.
A TIMESONLINE reference was made to this a few weeks back "Mr Limongelli’s software (DLA Piper) was used by the Metropolitan Police to track down the e-mail at the heart of last week’s cash-for-honours rumpus"
Facts & truth are a bit scarce at present, sources are all!
Everyone has sources and uses them - Guido, Benedict White (above) and Nick.
I think we're all being a bit precious and oversensitive at the moment.
There's room for all and the most exciting, and likely enduring, is the, very immature, blogosphere - it, and t'internet are the future!